Robert Potocki
(Poland)
„ORANGE REVOLUTION” IN TRANSATLANTIC RELATIONS
I. Nature of Ukrainian refolution …
In many capitals of European Union as well as USA Ukraine to time „orange
revolution” presented as typical „post soviet defeat”. She despite
this in draught reformed her existences with soviet republic at
stable post communist state. It was begun was therefore the
processes of social modernization as well as the destabilization
which stood with part of some neighboring countries was avoided. It
this success is this more serious it, that he was reached was alone.
She did not fulfill till November 2004 year of hope connected from
pane with Europeisation simultaneously though Ukraine or else
connected with her disappointments as to temporariness then she
managed simultaneously to work out she considerable property, and
simultaneously so little wasted her chances [15].
It therefore the and of USA in eve of presidential choices on
Ukraine in EU fundamentally was considered was two basic scripts of
development of incidents also:
1. Realistic – according to different kind of and opinion analytic
evaluations race to the highest office at state to win of the time
Prime Minister had the insignificant superiority of voices Viktor
Janukowycz. It forging were mattered was with cases obviously and
the trickery of results of elections. Judge also, that comes to
sporadic protests, as this had already the place after murder the
journalist Georgij Gongadze or else in time the action of civil
disobedience „Ukraine without Kuczma”. In consequence EU founded,
that Parliament and Committee European as well as advice naturally
solemn protests will fold Europe – against electoral abuses as well
as say smashing civil as she did this already considerably earlier.
And then – with reason of limitation of UE on European „Far East”
all will stay without changes. Conviction will stay still that
authoritarian Ukraine does not fulfill the criterions of European
integrations formally:
2. Pessimistic – Georgia variant be becomes realized with 2003 year,
but use strength will bring to deep division of Ukraine on part
Ukrainian as well as Russian. This in consequence can bring also to
serious commitment in crisis Russia as well as the political
destabilization at eastern borders of UE [20].
Moreover in such European capitals how: Paris or else conviction
reigned Berlin, that sale independent Ukraine will be in chain of
proamerican states next link creator Ankara-Kiev-Warsaw axis which
would separate between Europe and Russia all land of the
communication routes. The same existence between EU and Russia
strategic partnership, particularly meanwhile Paris- Berlin-Moscow
axis is menaced. In consequence – with perspective Kerneuropa – this
would mark it is not only the weakness of global ambitions the EU,
but and rank of these states in frames the only Union [6]. The
remembered geostrategical configuration makes possible on Caucasus
and in Central Asia the consolidation of political influences of USA
also. With geo-economics perspective would permit this Washington it
is not on control of routes of forwarding strategic materials
exclusively (mainly petroleum and gas), but and creation „supervisory
packet” over deposits [23]. The supported by Americans also
carefully Ukrainian project of settlement of post soviet space GUUAM
(along Ukraine – Caucasus – Central Asia axis) he was and be
perceived as answer on project of Commonwealth of Independent States
– the alternative permitting to curb the imperial ambitions of
Russia [9, 19].
Meanwhile both on Ukraine disappointed these variants, because had
to deal with from „peaceful revolution” [18], which she represented
option „idealistic, limited”, peaceable with rules worked out anyway
by Gene Sharp [12]. Two essential questions near this opportunity
appear: (1) How did it to this come? as well as (2) Why didn't it
come to bloodshed of blood? [16, 21, 22]. The matter of date of only
revolution is the next problem. This, or orange revolution was in
received in political sciences meaning revolution, can be the object
of dispute. Yet the author's sentence, she did not finish the
victory of revolutionary strengths, but bringing only to (to be
maybe – the extortion) Viktor Juszczenko victory in elections
general. We have already this both the element of breakthrough, as
and the continuation, because in result of revolutionary revolt
Juszczenko he stood oneself the legal Leonid Kuczma successor. From
here also using qualification Timothy Gartona Ash it on Ukraine came
to „refolution”, in which the elements of revolution, „civil
disobedience” as well as from above system reforms were completed,
was mutually [1].
This, what in time this „refolution” it was the most essential then
the demonstration of strength and consciousness of Ukrainian class
average as well as awakening „non-citizen society” [2, 5]. Equally
important they were however, disregarded by observer’s majority,
„white-blue awakening”, actions, undertaken by followers V.
Janukowycz in defense their candidate. They then truth, that these
demonstrations were not so spontaneous, as these „orange”, but the
occupants of eastern Ukraine after once first from beginning of
summers ninetieth publicly, they protected the own convictions
collectively. This that they acted under influence of propaganda
does not repeal authenticity their put and workings. Treat if we
tell, about „orange revolution” as revolt in defense of human
dignity then we can perceive in demonstrations also element this
„white-blue”.
It turns on this attention seldom also that three electoral
strategies in this campaign competed in practice. He turned out
winner V. Juszczenko. Yet if the Donetzk centre with Prime Minister
aimed to strong presidency, what answered the policy of Russia not
necessarily, then boss of the President's Administration Viktor
Medwedczuk (president's part it in these events is unclear and
controversial) he aimed to this to this candidate's victory had been
weak, and in consequence and sentenced on dependence from ruling
class political as well as Russia.
„Orange revolution” finished legal with delivery power. What will be
her durable results we will feel for several summers this. Both
during the closest parliamentary elections, as and in degree of
development of professional self-government and territorial (in this
just order) as well as the free medias. These results were one
should wait first of all in development of civil consciousness and
development of structures civil society. It after new power was one
should wait continuation rather, than decisive changes.
If however it walks about problem of revolution's date two positions
appear this here. First – founds that she played from October, 31
2004 to January 21, 2005. Second – pressure lies down on mainly
events 2004 year has between November 22 and December 8 the of
Independence’s Place directly as well as time throws aside before
and after these events [7]. The author's sentence, appealing to
theory of Victor Turner’s social drama, „orange revolution” crossed
by following stages:
1. Pre-revolutionary period (October 31 – November 21) – time
between first and second round of elections;
2. Ride on confrontation (December 22-28) – period of revolt in
western circles, the mutual accusations about attempt of state as
well as test initiating the force variants;
3. Limitation of revolutionary pronouncements (November 29 –
December 3) – stage of preliminary political prognoses as well as
decision of judicial powers;
4. Agreement (December 4-8) – negotiating the new principles of
political rivalry;
5. Post-revolutionary period (December 9, 2004 – January 23, 2005) –
electoral victory of Juszczenko camp in „third round”.
In course these events George Bush's president's administration and
European Union public co-operation in frames transatlantic system.
If Ukrainians will execute in voting the free and good choice at
last, and they will frustrate with the same the re-integration of
authoritarian Russian empire along democratic borders of Europe,
this will be one of these thin turnings of history when the
appearing on horizon catastrophe was altered in witty success. And
it would not happen then the meringues of common efforts of United
States and Union European using "soft power” all sides would
distance from use of physical violence.
II. … and transatlantic soft power
It these attitudes analyzing were one should was agree with
affirming that commitment diplomacy EU in solution of political
crisis on Ukraine happened enough accidentally, in defiance of will
of majority of European capitals. It the fears how this happened
earlier such state also were translated was (first of all France,
Germany) the possible deterioration from Russia the strategic
relations of Europe. It one should, as to underline, that peaceably
with tenet „close abroad” commitment Russia was recognized was for
„entitled”, however, despite that restrained in one's character, the
Union representatives statement on subject of choices on Ukraine
Russia received as interfering in internal matters this country [she
resulted what with doctrine anyway Anatolij Czubajs „broad-minded
empire”) [19]. European Union played however – by USA – key part in
limitation „Ukrainian refolution”.
This resulted as the EU is not with of the civilization
attractiveness, but also from taking over by her in time this crisis
of mediatory and law functions. From one side, as – speaker in her
name mediators (for example President of Poland) represented the not
narrowly comprehended own business, but they expressed in name of
USA, EU as well as NATO. Simultaneously this „solidarity” specific
EU influenced on this that she could neutralize she on international
arena voices of these countries of Union (mainly France, Germany),
which outdistanced in the face of „orange revolution” [13]. From
second meanwhile – she filled the legitimizing function, because in
eyes of international public opinion as well as community Ukrainian
„legalized” playing on Place of Independence, by only fact events,
that the Union „alone by oneself” spoke in name 25 countries
representing the liberal school of international relations [8].
This and above-mentioned factors cause however that UE outdistances
in the face of Ukraine as potential candidate to membership,
proposing in instead co-operation leaning on bilateral arrangements
as well as guideline of European policy of neighborhood rather. The
same the European Union deprives just the most effective instrument
of community foreign policy. It is not then leaning on treaty
records instrument, but on Union’s soft power. It was one should was
as mark, that peaceably from with experience of states edifying they
influence the UE, advantage from accession of to community on growth
of interest the membership in Union’s structures. They are
sufficiently tempting states would take on me the weight of
necessary reforms to fulfillment of European standards. This unusual
gravitation was it been possible to observe on example of Turkey
which found the patience and persistence awarded by Brussels with
forecast of beginning of negotiation’s process at last. However
Ukraine delivers in this sphere the freshest experiences us, where
in track of presidential elections as well as „orange revolution”
approach to European matter stood with one of key differing the camp
of power and opposition factors. Enthusiasm, with what European
politicians accepted on Ukraine and her changes geopolitical
reorientation one it was possible to therefore to give back with
laconic affirming well: „Ukraine in Europe, ale not in Union”. It in
total seems, that comes Ukraine to pit not only from European
standards, but also way of thinking of some European leaders.
But presidential crisis shows Ukraine how Europe can play huge and
momentous part, which gets involved in formation the policy and
economy of nations across support integral processes. It is then not
trifles thing. Just the opposite, this huge strategic meaning has
both for United States, as also and Europeans. In confrontation with
dangers Europe possesses the unique kind of power – not hegemony or
military power, but the gift of attractiveness. European Union stood
as gigantic political and economic magnet, which in intriguing way
it acts on one's neighbors. Widening is the foreign policy of Europe
today; meanwhile the most powerful strategic tool this, „bait of
membership”. How so to be visible qualification „soft power” is not
equivalent in this sense with qualification weak and rather subtle.
Author of this notion, Joseph Nye it is careful it that it was it
been possible was to get many desirable results of large supplies of
possession the strength understood in categories ordering and
extorting which in present world show oneself often insufficient.
This is as world which changes under influence of progressive
processes of globalizacji. The creature of strength changes with the
same as factor influence in international relations also [14: 1-18].
This author shows, that player can to get advantage, on which him
depends in international policy, because different admiring his
value and simultaneously wanting to equal his level of development,
they choose by him road indicated. This is „soft power” just: the
ability to formation of preferences different. The „soft power” is
bases the influences the European Union first of all on her economic
success how and on lying at bases of process values of unification
of continent also. The European Union this for many symbol of unity,
thanks which the threat of war walked away between states to this
time standing after opposite sides of barricade. She stood the area
of community, in general conviction, the island of room and stable
development. The positive picture on this be bases her in different
parts of world. Nothing, so odd, that you being in the closest
neighborhood of UE they notify to her structures the desire of
accession, sometimes even in defiance of her alone [17]. This just
thanks this strength of attraction of you wanting to stand with part
of European success how and they to draw with him profits undertake
the reformist having on aim effort the adaptation to European
standards. Shaping the same his neighborhood on one's picture, Union
assures me in matters the regional stabilizes, safety as well as
perspective of co-operation for her key.
* * *
„Orange revolution” with state last stage „unfinished revolution”,
which she brought country unexpected independence. Period of post
communist state reached in evolutionary way with the same end
(1991-2004). This is the also so long waited manageable point in
building the Ukrainian civil society and the process of
Europeisation of Ukraine. They are not warrant of these
transformations however political restored to power in result elites
„citizen’s revolt” (they are him only just „herald”), but
businessmen average generation, which they declare for market
economy as well as students (as you with PORA's!), which they in
period of revolt passed school „political realism” and they are the
leaven the future political class, to be well – versed in on value
of European civilization. Therefore „orange revolution” is so
essential for Ukraine and only Europe. She for Ukraine unlocked next
historical stage, party which finial will be to euratlantic
structures. It for Europe is meanwhile signal that – despite
conceptional weaknesses – idea „civil power” clear alternative in
the face of „hard power”.
However and so: „The fates of geopolitical future of Europe play in
Kiev. The eyes of world are turned in side of Ukraine which after
recovery independence it has to choose it in whose hand will give
back power 13 years, and choice this will weigh on fate of Europe
[…]. Union underlines that falsifying in this country choices can
influence on reports with Union […]. The neutrality of European
Union results with fear before risking Kremlin which accused already
her about annexation to game of Ukrainian opposition” [4].
Independently however from described moderation in the face of
Ukrainian state after 1991 „orange revolution” caused, that „People
in Kiev annihilated the conviction that the borders of UE will be
lain out in Berlin and Paris, [as] me was one should inform that
strategic businesses of her member's states are not the motor of
widening of European Union, but the strength of attraction of UE at
neighboring states. Fate fell in part such European union that she
has not borders, but it is in Europe the border of freedom” [10]. At
last also "This revolt inflected not only Ukraine. Russia licks
wounds, Poland celebrates diplomatic triumph and West learns the new
geopolitics of Europe” [11: 30].
References
1. Ash. T. G., Wiosna obywatel: Rewolucja 1989 widziana w Warszawie,
Budapeszcie, Berlinie i Pradze, Londyn: Polonia 1990.
2. Berdychowska B., „Listopad obywateli”, Wiez, January 2005.
3. Dzieduszycki P.A., Majdan grozy i nadziei, Torun: Wydawnictwo
Adam Marszalek 2005.
4. Fabre M., „L’Europe e la distance”, Le Figuro, December 9, 2004.
5. Gromadzki G., „Europeizacja Ukrainy”, Znak, 2005, no. 1.
6. Grossouvre H., Paris – Berlin – Moscou. La voie de l’independance
et de la Pax, L’age d’Homme: Paris 200
7. ßíåâñüêèé Ä., Õpoí³êà „ïîìàðàí÷åâî¿ ðåâîëþö³¿”, Õàðê³â: Ôîë³î
2005.
8. Kagan R., „Kryzys legitymizacji Ameryki”, Przeglad Polityczny,
2004, no. 66.
9. Êîëåñíèêîâ A., Ïåðâûé Óêðàèíñêèé: çàïèñêè c ïåðåäîâîé, Êèåâ:
Âàãðèóñ 2005.
10.KrastevI.,Fatalne zauroczenie Europa,
http://nowaarmia1.republika.pl/nowaarmia/press/1255-eu231204.htm.
11. Maziarski W., „Pomaranczowa alternatywa”, Newsweek Polska
December 5, 2004.
12. Martin B., „Gene Sharp’s Theory of Power”, Journal of peace
Research, 1989, vol. 26, no. 2.
13. „Misja kijowska. Prezydent Aleksander Kwasniewski opowiada o
mediacji na Ukrainie”, Polityka, December 18, 2004, no. 51.
14. Nye J., Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, New
York: PublicAffrais 2004.
15. Olszanski T. A., Trudna niepodleglosc: Ukraina na przelomie
tysiacleci, Krakow: Instytut Studiow Strategicznych 2003.
16. Osadczuk B., „O krok od tragedii”, Forum, January 24-30, 2005,
no. 4.
17. Reszka P., „Demokratyczna zaraza”, Rzeczpospolita, February
12-13.
18. Sharp G., From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual framework
for Liberation, Boston: The Albert Einstein Institution 2003.
19. Szewcowa L., „Rosja – czas odwrotu”, Gazeta Wyborcza, June
25-26, 2005.
20. Wilson A., Ukraine’s Orange Revolution, Yale: Yale University
Press, 2005.
21. Wojciechowski M., „Byl tylko krok do rozlewu krwi”, Gazeta
Wyborcza, January 18, 2005
22. Wojciechowski M., Bosacki M., „Zakulisowa historia rewolucji”,
Gazeta Wyborcza, April 2-3, 2005.
23. „Wygrali Amerykanie”, Rzeczpospolita, December 15, 2004.
|
